Philippe>itself in version control and, thus, fully tracked in terms of diffs.
Frankly speaking, JMX is hard to review. For instance, if a developer commits a new test plan version, then I could wonder "what changed". JMX diff does not provide that option. I'm not sure if JMeter can load two JMX files and compare them somehow (I guess it is not implemented), however plain old diff for JMX is not very human-understandable. On the other hand, if we add (optionally) a side file that is "human-readable" representation, then it would be so much easier to review the diff. Philippe> Maybe you're right, if it was HTML it would be much harder to spot differences. Though I'm sceptical of the usefulness of that being of more value than the usefulness of having a graphical (HTML) way to see the test. I guess those two (markdown vs HTML) target different use cases: a) Markdown is best for incremental review. In other words, it helps to review the script by providing a small gist of the altered bits. b) HTML might shine in reviewing the full script at once. For instance, if I browse a folder with multiple JMX files, I might wander how those scripts "look like", and it might be cool to just open a HTML file rather than start JMeter. Vladimir
